You might not realize it but you are hitting the nail on the head. People won't go working for recycling centers for free to make them more profitable. That's exactly why capitalism won't solve environmental problems.

All monitors are made to be viewed landscape. It's about biology. Our eyes are by nature more accustomed to view wide scenes instead of tall ones. If you feel like flipping your monitor to a vertical format, you probably have a too small monitor. With a properly sized widescreen monitor, two webpages fit nicely side-by-side. Who maximizes browser windows nowdays anyway?

O'rly? I'm perfectly happy with having an 38-inch TV, as my living room couldn't house a larger screen without it being too invasive. Why would i want 4k if it wouldn't create a noticable quality improvement unless i had a huge screen?

Sooner or later, the physical size of consumers living rooms will determine the upper limit for how highres a screen can be.

It's the very basics of capitalism, if you create too much unemployment, the system will collapse. What you need for sustained growth is a large middle class with jobs and money enough to pay for your products. On the other end, making production cheaper and more efficient while keeping the middle class rich enough to consume is what creates economical growth. Luxury items that used to have high production costs and thus be reserved for the rich gets cheaper and becomes available to the lower classes.

With that said, believing that infinite growth is possible in an infinite world is still both unscientific and retarded. While the economical cost of consumtion of luxury goods might decrease due to efficient production, the same is not always true for the ecological cost. At some point we will have to transform to a society where production efficiency increases no longer means that we buy a larger number of iphones every month, where we instead use increased efficiency to work less and increase spare time.

If you ask an scientist working with climate change, i guss he/she would say that we already have passed that point..

I am a game developer, and i fully agree. This article didn't teach me much...

Also, it's funny how non-developers looks at the concept of a "game engine". Any time that a game studio releases a tech demo and proclaims "this is our new game engine!" it's almost always the old one with improvements. Might be as little as tweaked shaders and new 3d-art.A game i worked with got a "best technology" award from a magazine in the end of the last year. What the frak do the reviewers know about our tech anyway? For all i know, we used some quite instable and often non-revolutionary tech to piece together a game that looks different from others.

Having sex with a sleeping person IS in fact defined as rape in Sweden. And to me it sounds quite reasonable that having sex with someone who isn't aware and thus can't give you consent should indeed be defined as rape in the rest of the world as well.